Pirating of Music and other Digital Media

[waffle_x_v]

No, I said that the record company makes a fixed amount, so the loses are only affecting the bands themselves. In this situation due to how much pirating going on yeah only the record company is benefiting, but stricter piracy laws would help the bands.

LOL. If piracy laws were stricter you'd need to pay for that signature in your avatar, or singing a song on youtube. Serebii might also have to pay a monthly fee for using nitendo's stuff. Do you really want that unnecessary BS?Likewise more piracy laws aren't going to help the artist. The record company only cares for themselves, that's why the piracy laws were put into place to benefit the company not the individual. You don't get the point of their inception, that's what's wrong.

The argument is that's legally and morally wrong, as both cases are stealing from the person who holds the rights to the song. It's the same as someone using something of yours without your permission, as long as they don't make a profit off it. Movies and tv shows buy licensing rights to songs all the time, and the artists makes money off of it. If I bought the rights to a song, and sold the rights to a movie does that make me wrong? Not really, it just means I made a business investment that's paying off.

That's not stealing. When did listening to a song become stealing a song? i'm not using it for profit or getting any other gain out of it. Were are you getting this logic from?

I gave sources and proved your individual points wrong one by one. Yet, you just put your fingers in your ears and scream.

[Sogeking]

LOL. If piracy laws were stricter you'd need to pay for that signature in your avatar, or singing a song on youtube. Serebii might also have to pay a monthly fee for using nitendo's stuff. Do you really want that unnecessary BS?Likewise more piracy laws aren't going to help the artist. The record company only cares for themselves, that's why the piracy laws were put into place to benefit the company not the individual. You don't get the point of their inception, that's what's wrong.

Yes, the record company only does care about themselves, that is exactly why they are the ones who make it out of it okay, not the bands. They would get more if there was no piracy, that's why they want no piracy. It's just in this situation the debt goes on the bands, who have to pay off the record companies, instead of the bands making money and the record company making even more money.

That's not stealing. When did listening to a song become stealing a song? i'm not using it for profit or getting any other gain out of it. Were are you getting this logic from?

Well when you buy a song you own the copy of the song for yourself, and only for yourself. It's legally stealing to download it, because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you.

I gave sources and proved your individual points wrong one by one. Yet, you just put your fingers in your ears and scream.

You gave one source that just stated an incredibly simple business concept that related to your concept very minimally, and you keep going back to the one point that piracy is free advertising and that's really it, which is an extremely debatable concept.

[waffle_x_v]

Well when you buy a song you own the copy of the song for yourself, and only for yourself. It's legally stealing to download it, because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you.

That's a matter of opinion really. But the rest looks like an agree to disagree sort of thing so i'll leave it at that.

[Sogeking]

That's a matter of opinion really. But the rest looks like an agree to disagree sort of thing so i'll leave it at that.

Well you always have to remember an opinion can be wrong, as much as someone like you who wants to not spend money to help out the artist you have to realize this is the real world where money matters, and that this is essentially their job. Next time you're at a job have someone tell you "Oh, we're taking some money out of your paycheck because someone didn't want to pay us. It's alright though, that person says its helping you, so you should be fine"

[miles0624]

Weren't you the one who said tours is were they get most of the money from? 75%? It isn't "that much"? 75% of someone's income is pretty meaty. Small gigs make all the difference. Say you get 1 gig a week for $500 on top of a $300 promotion deal. For one person, if you spend frugally, you can live off this till more people know who you are. Another new gig a week would adds +$500. This would allow the singer to advertise themselves a bit easier as well as being able to do more with their music and search for more gigs. It all counts. How is it irrelevant? It's possible to make it as singer even with pirating being a thing, live singing and meeting the person upfront is still a thing. Small gigs still exist, I don't see how it's decreasing unless you can show citations.

Which brings us back to the Gaga example. 113 million made from the tour, but she has only brought home 1.3 million dollars. So basically, even though it was 75 percent of her income, she only kept about 1 percent of that. She has to for the set up, all electronics, back up dancers etc. Yes, like you said, 500 dollars can be used if someone spends frugally, yet we aren't taking into account the fact they have to get the next gig, pay for advertisement, pay for the place (unless they are being payed to play) and other things. That why less than 5 percent of musicians are breaking even.

We've also went over how those album sales are close to irrelevant and how they only benefit the record dealer. Moot point.

No one has said this. They still make 25% of their profit from songs. The smaller the label, the more they will make from songs. That is also not counting royalties made later down the line. This could change depending on who owns copyright. For example, Michael Jackson's kids are the owners of the Beatles songs. Therefore, anytime someone buys one of their songs/albums/ or plays it on Pandora, Itunes, movies or the like they get paid.

LOL. If piracy laws were stricter you'd need to pay for that signature in your avatar, or singing a song on youtube. .

Not necessarily. The reason why people are allowed to do covers and use avatars are strictly for two reasons. The first is freedom of speech. The second reason is monopoly laws. When somethings is put into public domain, you can only copyright the exact product. Further, when it is put on a public site such as youtube, facebook, etc. you have officially signed over the rights to that social site. That is why you do not see a lot of television stations release their shows on youtube. If they did, someone else could re-release it on that public domain. Now what a few people have started doing is augmenting the contract with youtube so that they can keep their copyright. However, without doing this, the rights are signed over. (This extends to radio stations and other things as well.)

Also, with monopoly laws, he have statue of limitations. Specifically for music, one person can only own the rights for about fifty years (its a little less than fifty, like around 47, but I don't feel like getting out my law book again.) After that time period, it becomes free public domain unless someone were to buy it again.

Well when you buy a song you own the copy of the song for yourself, and only for yourself. It's legally stealing to download it, because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Well, I wouldn't say you owned it. I think it's more appropriate to say that you are allowed to use it recreationaly. I mean, you still can't share it with friend or distribute it like other people.

That's a matter of opinion really. But the rest looks like an agree to disagree sort of thing so i'll leave it at that.

Like stated above. It is not that it is an opinion. It is just that one gives you permission to use it while the other doesn't.

[Phlogiston]

Well when you buy a song you own the copy of the song for yourself, and only for yourself. It's legally stealing to download it, because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you.

This is reasonable, but on the "yourself, and only for yourself:"

Should loaning tapes/CDs/MP3 players be illegal, by a similar token? Because if that copy of the music is for myself and myself only, letting anyone else use it should be illegal, right?

Similarly -- second-hand sales -- should they be considered acceptable, since no more money is going to the artist, label, etc. via this transaction? I know there was, at one point, a push to make those illegal.

[Sogeking]

This is reasonable, but on the "yourself, and only for yourself:"

Should loaning tapes/CDs/MP3 players be illegal, by a similar token? Because if that copy of the music is for myself and myself only, letting anyone else use it should be illegal, right?

Similarly -- second-hand sales -- should they be considered acceptable, since no more money is going to the artist, label, etc. via this transaction? I know there was, at one point, a push to make those illegal.

Well this is why video game companies are using DRM and making it so Gamestop can't sell used games anymore, because they're tired of piracy and stores selling used games. Heavy Rain's producers even said they sold under 2 million copies of the game, but trophy data suggest over 3 million people have at least played the game a little, so to them that's a million people who essentially stole their product to them.

It's just with music it's a lot harder to put something like that in place. If they could do DRM for music I would guarantee it would happen as soon as possible.

[Phlogiston]

Well this is why video game companies are using DRM and making it so Gamestop can't sell used games anymore, because they're tired of piracy and stores selling used games. Heavy Rain's producers even said they sold under 2 million copies of the game, but trophy data suggest over 3 million people have at least played the game a little, so to them that's a million people who essentially stole their product to them.

It's just with music it's a lot harder to put something like that in place. If they could do DRM for music I would guarantee it would happen as soon as possible.

They can, but it would require the removal of hard copies, and would only really affect new music -- old CDs/LPs/etc. could still be obtained from second-hand shops. Also, there's the matter of certain folk preferring certain formats because of audiophile reasons. The reason why this works so well with games instead of music is that you don't need to get a new type of CD player every four years or so in order to play the newest CDs. I have a copy of Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms on CD from around its release time (ca. 1985), and I don't need to get out an older machine to play it if I want to switch to that from Rush's Clockwork Angels, which just came out last year. However, if I want to go from playing Super Mario 64 to Metroid Prime, I do need to change machines. Also, the number of people who make games on older consoles as (what basically is) a matter of art is fairly limited. Even a lot of retro-style games are made for newer machinery instead of, say, the NES. I'm not counting ROM hacks, for what I think are obvious reasons.

Music DRM does exist already for digital copies in some cases -- some stuff sold via iTunes is account-locked. Last I checked, too, you can only have your account hooked up to five separate computers. That part is an enormously bad idea, though, since computers have this problem where, once in a while, they break. Which means that you can be locked out of material that is legitimately yours just because you've hit upon a stream of shitty hard drives. I also was not able to burn those files to CD, presumably to keep me from moving to another media player or computer, re-ripping them (in questionable sound quality) and freely distributing those files.

So, yes, music DRM is possible, but not really perfect in those regards, and extant implementations have been flawed. But hey, nothing's perfect.

[ansem the wise]

This is reasonable, but on the "yourself, and only for yourself:"

Should loaning tapes/CDs/MP3 players be illegal, by a similar token? Because if that copy of the music is for myself and myself only, letting anyone else use it should be illegal, right?

Similarly -- second-hand sales -- should they be considered acceptable, since no more money is going to the artist, label, etc. via this transaction? I know there was, at one point, a push to make those illegal.

Actually in some places it is illegal to do that.
I bought a book and in the inside cover it said that I would pay a fine if I lived in a certain country and
lent or resold said book.

[Lion Demon]

As far as musicians are concerned... most of their money comes off live shows & Vevo views anyway. Record stores are being shut because nobody buys hard-copy albums so if anything... music should be free: musicians get payed way too much!

[moot]

As far as musicians are concerned... most of their money comes off live shows & Vevo views anyway. Record stores are being shut because nobody buys hard-copy albums so if anything... music should be free: musicians get payed way too much!

lmao what

*pop* musicians are the only ones getting paid too much. most artists only get by comfortably or struggle to get by at all, and the smaller groups still need to hold day jobs to survive.

physical sales are still pretty big by the way. CD sales are declining but they still sell in excess of 100 million units every year (and then there is the resurgence of vinyl, too). digital sales exceeded 1 billion downloads last year too so the music industry is still alive and well (the wealth is just distributed crazy unevenly)